↓ Skip to main content

A Retrospective Assessment of a Failed Collaborative Process in Conservation

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Management, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
Title
A Retrospective Assessment of a Failed Collaborative Process in Conservation
Published in
Environmental Management, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00267-018-1045-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heidi E. Kretser, Jon P. Beckmann, Joel Berger

Abstract

Collaboration provides one tool for managing the complicated and often the contentious natural resource issues. Successful collaborative arrangements involve a mix of actors bringing key attributes to the table: power, capacity, motivation, mandate, and synergy. These attributes, if missing or if one overshadows the rest, can derail the collaborative process and/or the conservation outcomes. We offer a case study of natural gas field development impacts on America's only endemic ungulate-pronghorn (Antilocapra americana)-winter range in the Upper Green River Basin (UGRB), Wyoming, USA. We illustrate how a collaborative process can go awry, given asymmetries between the relative strengths and the associated attributes of actors, and the subsequent extent to which this imbalance created an unfavorable situation for continued collaboration. The case study reveals disagreements on technical data and potential insight on agency capture operating at a local scale. Despite these process challenges, some conservation outcomes resulted from work generated by the collaboration. Our experience underscores the importance of defining a clear purpose for collaborative processes at the outset, articulating specific roles, ensuring transparency among actors, and flexibility for long-term management as possible ways, in which the groups involved in collaborations to manage natural resources can complement each other's strengths and strive for better conservation outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 6 35%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 18%
Student > Master 3 18%
Professor 2 12%
Researcher 1 6%
Other 2 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 7 41%
Social Sciences 3 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 6%
Other 2 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 October 2018.
All research outputs
#1,886,598
of 12,801,967 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Management
#154
of 1,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,002
of 270,395 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Management
#7
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,801,967 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,159 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 270,395 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.